Here we are on this God forsaken mud ball orbiting a second rate sun on a Cul de Sac set off in a back water solar system, light years from the main road of the universe. Perhaps that’s why some choose to treat us as if we just fell off the proton truck from Pluto. The belief that we literally don’t know the difference between shit and shinola or the difference between impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

CBS the only American television network whose corporate intitials describe its product is defending itself from charges of the appearance of impropriety. The network is defending it’s choice of correspondent Rita Braver to profile Lynn Cheney wife of the Vice President on the networks Sunday Morning program. Mrs. Cheney has published her new memoir “Blue Skies, No Fences.” The long anticipated story of the wife of the Vice President and her recollections of growing up in Wyoming. A book that the public has been clamoring for after all who can forget the memoirs of Tipper Gore or Barbara Bush?

The dilemma CBS finds its self in is that the Cheney blockbuster was represented by Robert Barnett Rita Braver’s husband but it’s a small world, after all. Braver did disclose in the story that her husband had represented the author in book negotiations leaving CBS confused by the brew ha ha. Linda Mason, CBS News’ senior vice president for standards, said Thursday she was "surprised" that such objections would be raised.

"If we had felt there was a conflict, of course we wouldn’t have done it," Mason said. "We thought that because we had called attention to Bob’s involvement, that we had done our part."

She noted that Braver is a Washington-based senior correspondent for the program. "Rita is very responsible, Bob is very responsible, and they separate their (professional) lives," Mason said, adding that Barnett was paid a fee upfront for his legal services, with no financial stake in the book’s sales.

Funny thing here is the more Ms. Mason talks the worse the story looks. Working backwards, Braver is a Washington based Senior correspondent for the program that explains why she’s doing a puff piece on Lynn Cheney’s book hardly Woodward and Bernstein work here. I doubt the story will be nominated for a Peabody award but CBS puts their most senior correspondent on it of course. Unable apparently to find anyone else in the halls of CBS competent enough to handle a book review except the reporter whose spouse took money to represent the author.

"Rita is very responsible, Bob is very responsible, and they separate their (professional) lives," but they sleep in the same bed and take meals across the same table. The concept that they wouldn’t assist each other in their careers fly’s in the face of common sense.

Mason said, “adding that Barnett was paid a fee upfront for his legal services, with no financial stake in the book’s sales.” And no other prospective authors I assume in Washington would ever let it cross their minds that Mr. Barnett was married to a Washington-based senior correspondent for a national television program. Mr. Barnett was paid an upfront fee and just out of curiosity I wonder how Mr. Barnett’s fee compares to other literary representatives that aren’t married to Washington-based senior correspondents for a national television program?

You see its not improper but the appearance of impropriety it looks like shoe polish but it smells like, need I say it? But why does CBS mention the story at all? Memoirs of the wife of Vice Presidents have a limited marketing appeal at best. Do you suppose it has something to do with Dan Rather’s lawsuit where he alleges political pressure was used to influence stories and that corporate directors with political agendas directly exerted influence on news stories?

Its all about appearances, if you were a pilot in the National Guard and when the Guard instituted drug testing for pilots and you failed to show up it gives the appearance that you are hiding something. Or if you’re a Senator caught in a men’s room sting it’s not because you are gay that you are in trouble it’s because it appears you are looking for sex in a public place. Gay or straight it’s appears unseemly and tawdry and cheap and were it a teen or a young person pleading guilty to a lesser charge it might appear reasonable. But being a US Senator he is on the horns of a dilemma, is he to pretend he was stupid or does he pretend to think that the electorate is stupid?

In some occupation appearances are everything, jobs with fiduciary roles such as a judge and an attorney. If you were involved in a legal dispute and the judge was your adversary’s father or the judges wife worked for your opponent how comfortable would you feel about the impartiality? That’s why for appearance sake the judge would reccuse themselves, no honest judge would ever hear a case where his direct relatives were involved or employed by one of the litigants. That’s beyond the appearance of improper conduct that is improper conduct. That way by reccusing themselves they would be free to go away together with the litigants on hunting junkets with out fear of recrimination.

But its such a small small world its so hard to find a good attorney in Washington D.C. That the Bush campaign was forced to hire a young attorney name Scalia son of the Supreme Court Judge. But in this small world why should we be surprised if the wife of another Supreme Court Justice worked for the Bush Campaign these honorable men would reccuse themselves rather than sully their robes. Perhaps it’s because Washington is a company town. When the twin towers fell in New York who was a principal in the company responsible for the buildings security? Why Marvin Bush the President’s younger brother what a coincidence! In a big town like New York too. Where else did they handle security? United Airlines, wasn’t that the airline that the planes where hijacked from? What are the odds against that?

Doesn’t sound like a very good company to invest in does it? Securacom is owned by a Saudi Arabian investment firm where the President’s brother also served on the board. Saudi Arabia that’s the country where the majority of the high jackers came from isn’t it? I don’t know but Marvin Bush kind of makes Billy Carter look like an MIT professor. I wonder, with the track record of Securacom what kind of Bozo’s would hire them now?

The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites." I’m sure the contracts were let out on competitive bid so as not to appear inappropriate and Securacom won them fair and square because it’s a small world after all.

NBC news corespondent Andrea Mitchell was named in the Scooter Libby supoena to testify but was never called. I’m sure that came as a relief to her husband then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Mitchell was one of the reporters alleged to have disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame. In October 2003 Ms. Mitchell made a statement on CNBC’s Capital Report to Allen Murray indicating that there was a rumor among Washington Reporters regarding Ms. Wilson’s employment with the CIA before Tim Russert spoke to the defendant Libby

However shortly there after she recanted this statement asserting that she did not know Ms. Plame worked at the CIA prior to the publication of the Robert Novak article. The article that Tim Russert her boss alleged he first learned of Plames identity. Mitchell maintains she “misunderstood the question and screwed it up.” Apparently the appearance of impropriety carries little weight at NBC propriety would suggest Mitchell should be moved to another department or released. Mitchell continued on as a corespondent and pundit making statements about the case with out ever acknowledging that she was a principle.

A college newspaper would have ejected her but on NBC she continues saying on in March 12th 2007, erroneously that polls show that most Americans want to see Lewis Libby pardoned. However, the most recent poll taken by CNN at the time showed that only 18% favored a pardon. The first rule of journalism it to get the facts straight the first rule of corporate journalism is say what the boss wants to hear and damn the impropriety.

This administration has made it clear in word and deed that they will reward their friends and seek to punish those perceived as enemies. From breaking the tradition of letting the most senior correspondent sits in the front row and ask the first question at press conferences. To repeated exclusive appearances on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and other partisan media outlets even made up ones giving press credentials to a male escort with a pornographic web site, the administration seeks to make it a smaller world still. Ignoring one of the founding principles of our government that honest information about that government is the right of the people to know and should be delivered to us not only without impropriety but also even a speck of the appearance of impropriety.

I worked for a private company that had as it’s policy that employees could not be married or work in the same departments. The reasons are obvious to any thinking person to avoid conflict of interests. Game show and contests are not open to family members for the same obvious reasons yet our government and media expect you to believe it’s just a small world after all.

Who was working the Fox news political desk on election night 2000? Why it was Jim Ellis George Bush’s first cousin, damn, it’s a small world

The far-right in Ukraine are acting as the vanguard of a protest movement that is being reported as pro-democracy. The situation on the ground is not as simple as pro-EU and trade versus pro-Putin and Russian hegemony in the region.
When US Senator John McCain dined with Ukraine’s opposition leaders in December, he shared a table and later a stage with the leader of the extreme far-right Svoboda party Oleh Tyahnybok.
This is Oleh Tyahnybok, he has claimed a "Moscow-Jewish mafia" (...)

Your support here: http://www.peaceinsyria.org/support.php
We, the undersigned, who are part of an international civil society increasingly worried about the awful bloodshed of the Syrian people, are supporting a political initiative based on the results of a fact-finding mission which some of our colleagues undertook to Beirut and Damascus in September 2012. This initiative consists in calling for a delegation of highranking personalities and public figures to go to Syria in order to (...)

At first glance, the results of America’s 2012 election appear to be a triumph for social, racial, and economic justice and progress in the United States: California voters passed a proposition requiring the rich to shoulder their fair share of the tax burden; Two states, Colorado and Washington, legalized the recreational use of marijuana, while Massachusetts approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes; Washington and two other states, Maine and Maryland, legalized same-sex (...)

In a 2004 episode of Comedy Central’s animated series South Park, an election was held to determine whether the new mascot for the town’s elementary school would be a “giant douche” or a “turd sandwich.” Confronted with these two equally unpalatable choices, one child, Stan Marsh, refused to vote at all, which resulted in his ostracization and subsequent banishment from the town.
Although this satirical vulgarity was intended as a commentary on the two (...)

PART I
PART II
PART III
If there is one major inconsistency in life, it is that young people who know little more than family, friends and school are suddenly, at the age of eighteen, supposed to decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, because of their limited life experiences, the illusions they have about certain occupations do not always comport to the realities.
I discovered this the first time I went to college. About a year into my studies, I (...)

PART I
PART II
PART IV
Disillusioned with the machinations of so-called “traditional” colleges, I became an adjunct instructor at several “for-profit” colleges.
Thanks largely to the power and pervasiveness of the Internet, “for-profit” colleges (hereinafter for-profits) have become a growing phenomenon in America. They have also been the subject of much political debate and the focus of a Frontline special entitled College Inc.
Unlike traditional (...)

PART I
PART III
PART IV
Several years ago, a young lady came into the college where I was teaching to inquire about a full-time instructor’s position in the sociology department. She was advised that only adjunct positions were available. Her response was, “No thanks. Once an adjunct, always an adjunct.”
Her words still echo in my mind.
Even as colleges and universities raise their tuition costs, they are relying more and more on adjunct instructors. Adjuncts are (...)

PART II
PART III
PART IV
When The Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution over two hundred years ago, Americans were blessed with many rights considered to be “fundamental.” One conspicuously missing, however, was the right to an education.
This was not surprising given the tenor of the times. America was primarily an agrarian culture, and education, especially higher education, was viewed as a privilege reserved for the children of the rich and (...)

If there is one universal question that haunts all human beings at some point in their lives, it is, “Why do we die?”
Death, after all, is the great illogic. It ultimately claims all, the rich and the poor, the mighty and the small, the good and the evil. Death also has the capability to make most human pursuits—such as the quest for wealth, fame and power—vacuous and fleeting.
Given this reality, I have often wondered why so many people are still willing to (...)

How much corruption can a “democracy” endure before it ceases to be a democracy?
If five venal, mendacious, duplicitous, amoral, biased and (dare I say it) satanic Supreme Court “justices”—John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy—have their way, America will soon find out.
In several previous articles for Pravda.Ru, I have consistently warned how the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision is one of the (...)

Imagine, if you will, that the United States government passes a law banning advertisers from sponsoring commercials on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show or Rupert Murdoch’s Fox (Faux) “News” Network.
On one hand, there would be two decided advantages to this ban: The National IQ would undoubtedly increase several percentage points, and manipulative pseudo-journalists would no longer be able to appeal to the basest instincts in human nature for ratings and profit while (...)

LIVE, from the State that brought you Senator Joseph McCarthy, Wisconsin voters now proudly present, fresh from his recall election victory, Governor Scott Walker!
At first glance, it is almost unfathomable that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have voted to retain Scott Walker as Wisconsin’s governor. This, after all, is a man who openly declared he is trying to destroy the rights of workers through a “divide and conquer” strategy; who received 61% of the (...)

A question I’ve frequently been asked since I began writing for Pravda.Ru in 2003 is, “Why did you become disillusioned with the practice of law?”
This question is understandable, particularly since, in most people’s minds, being an attorney is synonymous with wealth and political power.
I’ve always been reluctant to answer this question for fear it will discourage conscientious and ethical people from pursuing careers in the legal profession—a (...)